For the past five days I have been neck-deep in IT shenanigans far beyond my pay grade. Next week the Raw Deal will take on a new, sleeker and more reader-friendly look. During the changeover I immersed myself in other blogs for inspiration. Often, I enjoy taking a break from the norm and find myself reading things of a completely different nature. This evening I stumbled upon a most unique and entertaining post by Sam Sommers, Ph.D. and Social Psychologist at Tufts university. Here’s what I found: Read the rest of this entry »

There is a bill that has cleared the House of Representatives and is now being debated in the Senate. This bill, sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, labeled a “Financial Reform Bill” , which according to President Obama, will clear corruption from Wall Street and large insurance firms, investment firms and banking institutions. Obama’s own words:

“Romneycare” is the microcosm of Obamacare – the following is a disturbing, and factual look into the future of our new health care plan and what it means to you, despite what Congress is attempting to sell you.

What is Romneycare? In case you don’t know, former governor of Massachusetts (and a possible republican presidential candidate for 2012) Mitt Romney instituted a plan for the state of Massachusetts which would cover every man, woman and child – state government-run healthcare. Basically, Romneycare is a genetic blueprint for Obamacare.

First the basics. Romneycare promised to do just what Obamacare is promising to do: Reduce costs for insurance premiums, make health coverage affordable for all citizens, and promises that costs will be manageable on our budget (i.e. deficit neutral).

This video from Zonation quite succinctly explains EXACTLY why we see backlash like “Black Barbie is less than White Barbie” in today’s PC society.

I found this article on ABC news last week, and just had to shake my head.

Black Barbie selling for less than White Barbie. It’s a polarizing subject that I am sure the likes of Reverend Jackson could pontificate about for hours. In kind, most American’s could easily step in with valid opinions for varying reasons.

In the article, the experts consulted all suggested that smart retail business was tantamount to the devaluation of black girls. I think it’s a stretch personally, but I believe the opinions contained within the article outline the core of the real problem – that our aim is off. Blaming WalMart, or the dolls features for social “injustice” is just a reopening of old wounds – outlining separation of black and whites – ad nauseum.

For example:

Lisa Wade, an assistant sociology professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles had this to say, “Walmart could have decided “that it’s really important that we as a company don’t send a message that we value blackness less than whiteness,”. She went on to say, “Walmart could have chosen to keep the dolls at equal prices in an effort not to “reproduce whatever ugly inequalities are out there.”

Reproducing ugly inequalities indeed – that’s the core of it. That’s where our sites should be aimed – at stopping this “reproduction” at all costs.

Other key points of view from the Barbie Color controversy noted:

“Black children develop perceptions about their race very early. They are not oblivious to this. There’s still that residue. There’s still the problem, the overcoming years, decades of racial and economic subordination,” Harvard University professor William Julius Wilson

-and-

“The implication of the lowering of the price is that’s devaluing the black doll,” said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development.

Walmart’s position was back to those nutty capitalistic retailer ideas:

“Pricing like items differently is a part of inventory management in retailing,” WalMart spokesperson Melissa O’Brien said.

Ok, maybe they all have a point, and maybe you agree or don’t. But the pink elephant in the room went without mention, once again.

Residue. Reproduction of ugly inequalities. I don’t believe the actions of a retailer selling black dolls at “sale” prices is harming the socioeconomic fiber of black children in the US – I submit that it’s rather black leaders, schools, and government that do this.

Black leaders spew diatribes at the black community, telling them how they have been and are being oppressed, and being treated unfairly in all social and economic situations. The black community are constantly reminded of their unfortunate history in the US, and not of any strides and outright changes made since the early 60’s. Why are black people always portrayed by their own leaders as an exclusionary group, and not what they are – American citizens – PART OF the whole, not just “apart” from the whole?

Educators use black history month to drive this exclusionary mantra home. I am certainly not saying that history of the Civil Rights movement is not important – I am merely suggesting that we start calling it American History and to stop constantly pointing out the differences – constantly indoctrinating our youth that black people are different – so different that black history be separate from the rest of America’s history. Martin Luther King wanted black and whites sitting together – it wasn’t Mr. King’s idea to constantly have a separateness – his was a message of unification.

Indeed our US Government, as a never-ending apologetic reparations program has instituted programs further carving out a separateness of race, and not a kinship of mankind, such as Affirmative Action. Now before you go crazy – I understand why and how programs such as these, began– but what are they telling us now? It is like we as a nation are saying to the black youths of America that they aren’t able to qualify among the regular workforce, so we’ll give you a leg up. What’s the message here? Blacks aren’t as smart as other races? That blacks can’t compete unless the bets are hedged, that they can’t compete unless the deck’s been stacked in their favor? That giving black people a head start is the only way they can be equal with other nationalities? Even the PC term African-American is once again carving out a separateness of station. As if they must be hyphenated, or qualified in some way – just to make especially careful we redefine the differences over and over. Why not just be American?

If there is any message in the “Baribies” – it’s that it’s time to “sight in” our focus so that we’re aiming at the real problem here, and not continuing on the blame of our misguided past. We don’t need Black History month – we need a refocus on how black people are part of America’s history. Togetherness not separatist. We don’t need a separate section in the bookstore for black writers, or black literature – isn’t this exactly the OPPOSITE of what Dr. King wanted? Isn’t that just more segregation? Why not count the black authors among the white – standing side by side, and shoulder to shoulder – and not given preferential treatment, or segregated treatment, but a togetherness. A kinship. A sense of oneness.

We need to stop outlining our differences and concentrate on what makes us the same – let’s let Barbie be Barbie, and retailers make sense of business – and leave the residue out of it.

This video from Zonation quite succinctly explains EXACTLY why we see backlash like “Black Barbie is less than White Barbie” in today’s PC society.

I found this article on ABC news last week, and just had to shake my head.

Black Barbie selling for less than White Barbie. It’s a polarizing subject that I am sure the likes of Reverend Jackson could pontificate about for hours. In kind, most American’s could easily step in with valid opinions for varying reasons.

In the article, the experts consulted all suggested that smart retail business was tantamount to the devaluation of black girls. I think it’s a stretch personally, but I believe the opinions contained within the article outline the core of the real problem – that our aim is off. Blaming WalMart, or the dolls features for social “injustice” is just a reopening of old wounds – outlining separation of black and whites – ad nauseum.

For example:

Lisa Wade, an assistant sociology professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles had this to say, “Walmart could have decided “that it’s really important that we as a company don’t send a message that we value blackness less than whiteness,”. She went on to say, “Walmart could have chosen to keep the dolls at equal prices in an effort not to “reproduce whatever ugly inequalities are out there.”

Reproducing ugly inequalities indeed – that’s the core of it. That’s where our sites should be aimed – at stopping this “reproduction” at all costs.

Other key points of view from the Barbie Color controversy noted:

“Black children develop perceptions about their race very early. They are not oblivious to this. There’s still that residue. There’s still the problem, the overcoming years, decades of racial and economic subordination,” Harvard University professor William Julius Wilson

-and-

“The implication of the lowering of the price is that’s devaluing the black doll,” said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development.

Walmart’s position was back to those nutty capitalistic retailer ideas:

“Pricing like items differently is a part of inventory management in retailing,” WalMart spokesperson Melissa O’Brien said.

Ok, maybe they all have a point, and maybe you agree or don’t. But the pink elephant in the room went without mention, once again.

Residue. Reproduction of ugly inequalities. I don’t believe the actions of a retailer selling black dolls at “sale” prices is harming the socioeconomic fiber of black children in the US – I submit that it’s rather black leaders, schools, and government that do this.

Black leaders spew diatribes at the black community, telling them how they have been and are being oppressed, and being treated unfairly in all social and economic situations. The black community are constantly reminded of their unfortunate history in the US, and not of any strides and outright changes made since the early 60’s. Why are black people always portrayed by their own leaders as an exclusionary group, and not what they are – American citizens – PART OF the whole, not just “apart” from the whole?

Educators use black history month to drive this exclusionary mantra home. I am certainly not saying that history of the Civil Rights movement is not important – I am merely suggesting that we start calling it American History and to stop constantly pointing out the differences – constantly indoctrinating our youth that black people are different – so different that black history be separate from the rest of America’s history. Martin Luther King wanted black and whites sitting together – it wasn’t Mr. King’s idea to constantly have a separateness – his was a message of unification.

Indeed our US Government, as a never-ending apologetic reparations program has instituted programs further carving out a separateness of race, and not a kinship of mankind, such as Affirmative Action. Now before you go crazy – I understand why and how programs such as these, began– but what are they telling us now? It is like we as a nation are saying to the black youths of America that they aren’t able to qualify among the regular workforce, so we’ll give you a leg up. What’s the message here? Blacks aren’t as smart as other races? That blacks can’t compete unless the bets are hedged, that they can’t compete unless the deck’s been stacked in their favor? That giving black people a head start is the only way they can be equal with other nationalities? Even the PC term African-American is once again carving out a separateness of station. As if they must be hyphenated, or qualified in some way – just to make especially careful we redefine the differences over and over. Why not just be American?

If there is any message in the “Baribies” – it’s that it’s time to “sight in” our focus so that we’re aiming at the real problem here, and not continuing on the blame of our misguided past. We don’t need Black History month – we need a refocus on how black people are part of America’s history. Togetherness not separatist. We don’t need a separate section in the bookstore for black writers, or black literature – isn’t this exactly the OPPOSITE of what Dr. King wanted? Isn’t that just more segregation? Why not count the black authors among the white – standing side by side, and shoulder to shoulder – and not given preferential treatment, or segregated treatment, but a togetherness. A kinship. A sense of oneness.

We need to stop outlining our differences and concentrate on what makes us the same – let’s let Barbie be Barbie, and retailers make sense of business – and leave the residue out of it.

This video from Zonation quite succinctly explains EXACTLY why we see backlash like “Black Barbie is less than White Barbie” in today’s PC society.

I found this article on ABC news last week, and just had to shake my head.

Black Barbie selling for less than White Barbie. It’s a polarizing subject that I am sure the likes of Reverend Jackson could pontificate about for hours. In kind, most American’s could easily step in with valid opinions for varying reasons.

In the article, the experts consulted all suggested that smart retail business was tantamount to the devaluation of black girls. I think it’s a stretch personally, but I believe the opinions contained within the article outline the core of the real problem – that our aim is off. Blaming WalMart, or the dolls features for social “injustice” is just a reopening of old wounds – outlining separation of black and whites – ad nauseum.

For example:

Lisa Wade, an assistant sociology professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles had this to say, “Walmart could have decided “that it’s really important that we as a company don’t send a message that we value blackness less than whiteness,”. She went on to say, “Walmart could have chosen to keep the dolls at equal prices in an effort not to “reproduce whatever ugly inequalities are out there.”

Reproducing ugly inequalities indeed – that’s the core of it. That’s where our sites should be aimed – at stopping this “reproduction” at all costs.

Other key points of view from the Barbie Color controversy noted:

“Black children develop perceptions about their race very early. They are not oblivious to this. There’s still that residue. There’s still the problem, the overcoming years, decades of racial and economic subordination,” Harvard University professor William Julius Wilson

-and-

“The implication of the lowering of the price is that’s devaluing the black doll,” said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development.

Walmart’s position was back to those nutty capitalistic retailer ideas:

“Pricing like items differently is a part of inventory management in retailing,” WalMart spokesperson Melissa O’Brien said.

Ok, maybe they all have a point, and maybe you agree or don’t. But the pink elephant in the room went without mention, once again.

Residue. Reproduction of ugly inequalities. I don’t believe the actions of a retailer selling black dolls at “sale” prices is harming the socioeconomic fiber of black children in the US – I submit that it’s rather black leaders, schools, and government that do this.

Black leaders spew diatribes at the black community, telling them how they have been and are being oppressed, and being treated unfairly in all social and economic situations. The black community are constantly reminded of their unfortunate history in the US, and not of any strides and outright changes made since the early 60’s. Why are black people always portrayed by their own leaders as an exclusionary group, and not what they are – American citizens – PART OF the whole, not just “apart” from the whole?

Educators use black history month to drive this exclusionary mantra home. I am certainly not saying that history of the Civil Rights movement is not important – I am merely suggesting that we start calling it American History and to stop constantly pointing out the differences – constantly indoctrinating our youth that black people are different – so different that black history be separate from the rest of America’s history. Martin Luther King wanted black and whites sitting together – it wasn’t Mr. King’s idea to constantly have a separateness – his was a message of unification.

Indeed our US Government, as a never-ending apologetic reparations program has instituted programs further carving out a separateness of race, and not a kinship of mankind, such as Affirmative Action. Now before you go crazy – I understand why and how programs such as these, began– but what are they telling us now? It is like we as a nation are saying to the black youths of America that they aren’t able to qualify among the regular workforce, so we’ll give you a leg up. What’s the message here? Blacks aren’t as smart as other races? That blacks can’t compete unless the bets are hedged, that they can’t compete unless the deck’s been stacked in their favor? That giving black people a head start is the only way they can be equal with other nationalities? Even the PC term African-American is once again carving out a separateness of station. As if they must be hyphenated, or qualified in some way – just to make especially careful we redefine the differences over and over. Why not just be American?

If there is any message in the “Baribies” – it’s that it’s time to “sight in” our focus so that we’re aiming at the real problem here, and not continuing on the blame of our misguided past. We don’t need Black History month – we need a refocus on how black people are part of America’s history. Togetherness not separatist. We don’t need a separate section in the bookstore for black writers, or black literature – isn’t this exactly the OPPOSITE of what Dr. King wanted? Isn’t that just more segregation? Why not count the black authors among the white – standing side by side, and shoulder to shoulder – and not given preferential treatment, or segregated treatment, but a togetherness. A kinship. A sense of oneness.

We need to stop outlining our differences and concentrate on what makes us the same – let’s let Barbie be Barbie, and retailers make sense of business – and leave the residue out of it.

When I sat down to write my traditional late-night post (1:17 am), a new email popped up in my inbox. After reading the email I sat for a few minutes to ponder its content, in disbelief. The email, sent by fellow blogger Dr. J was about a recent article from Townhall.com. As many of you know, I have followed the story of Jed Brandt the Communist. For those of you who don’t know, Brandt was recently featured on the Glenn Beck program for his anti-American rants. Apparently, in both 2009 and 2010 Brandt and his affiliate organization, The Brecht Forum received Obama stimulus money. Let me say it again, Obama stimulus money was given to a Communist organization. Somehow, Obama felt those particular dollars would be put to better use with an organization like the Brecht Forum and not giving it to you, the hard-working American tax-payer.

(Townhall.com) A Marxist group that has demanded the “destruction” of the U.S. and issued a call “to bring this government down” is the recipient of stimulus funds from the Obama American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This same group, the Brecht Forum, has also called for the complete takeover of insurance companies and farms in America.

It is unclear whether Obama felt he might ‘explain’ such a donation or rather, the donation might simply go unnoticed. Either way, it’s done and we noticed.

(Townhall.com continues) The controversial stimulus bill, as ARRA is better known, provided funds for the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA), which promptly granted the New York City-based Brecht Forum $5,000 in 2009 and $9,000 in 2010. The NYSCA had previously announced in 2008 that due to state budget cuts it would no longer be able to fund 573 organizations that it had previously funded. One of the groups on the list to be slashed was the Brecht Forum. After NYSCA secured $399,000 in stimulus money, the Brecht Forum once again had funding.

As much as I would like to believe Obama’s new ‘Communist’ donation was simply and oversight, my instinct tells me otherwise. So far he’s walked like a duck, talked like a duck; I only hope he is soon made a lame duck.

UPDATE: If you would like to read my discussions with Communists on Kasamaproject.org, click HERE

According to this article, the term “poor” means never having less than two television sets.

Sighs. In an ever-mounting pile of evidence that Barack Obama is a Socialist hell bent on redistributing the wealth, here is yet one more travesty to the American taxpayer.

According to this article, the current government definition of “poor” in this country isn’t really “poor” by any other standard on the globe.

…the typical American defined as poor (according to the traditional, pre-Obama poverty measure) has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs.

Under the Obama Administration, this definition is going to change:

Under the new measure, a family will be judged “poor” if its income falls below a certain specified income threshold. Nothing new there, but, unlike the current poverty standards, the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause: They will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living standards of the average American.

The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy. The new measure will count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people. As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion. In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to ensure that “the poor will always be with you,” no matter how much better off they get in absolute terms.

I think that’s pretty darn scary. As one who’s made the choice to work two jobs at once to insure paying my own way, I suppose I was considered poor as well.

I once qualified for WIC (Women Infants and Children), for food stamps (370$/month) , HUD benefits, free healthcare and a utilities stipend. My household was making about $35,000 per year when I qualified for this. How do I know? I found all this out when I had my first child. My husband had lost his job which carried our medical benefits. When I went for my 6 month maternity checkup, the staff was so courteous, telling me not to worry – if we didn’t have coverage it would all be paid for. And it was. 100% of it. What I didn’t realize, is that when this happens to you, the hospital case workers automatically register you for all that free stuff I mentioned earlier. I was mortified. I’d had a high risk pregnancy, and had no preconceived notion that we’d go suddenly from a two income professional family, to a one income poor family – one which was offered welfare. We declined.

When my first born was five weeks old, I took a job as a server in a restaurant – this way, I could work when my husband was home, and vice versa – eliminating day care costs. We rented a meager two bedroom house in a suburb or a major city. We had one car, one TV with DISH Network (a luxury available to us since Dish was what my husband was peddling at the time for his job) But we had no stove in this house. It wasn’t rented with one – so we cooked on hot plates and electric plug in skillets. We paid all our own bills, but often had to pay electric one month, then gas the next month, etc. Finally, when my first born was one, I took a job in my profession – a nine to fiver – but kept my position at the restaurant on nights and weekends. My husband got a better paying job, and “re-upped” with the Army Reserve to keep us generating as much income as we could muster. Within 3 years, we worked our way back to a better life, nicer home (with a stove *big plus*), and were able to pay our bills on time, and in full.

(FOX News covers the Communist’s progressive’s rant) Several things come to mind when I hear the name Sean Penn, but they all culminate into one thought – Spicoli was smarter.

There is so much that bothers me about this – the fact that Penn is completely unaware that Chavez is a dictator; the fact that Penn’s position of free speech and the dissolution of the first amendment makes him the biggest hypocrite; the fact that Penn wishes painful diseases onto fellow American’s who would disagree with him; the fact that someone like Penn, an actor, is given audience to a world leader at all is flabbergasting.

The most troublesome behavior, however, is his obvious treason. Yes, Sean Penn is guilty of treason. Treason is defined as a crime that undermines the offender’s government; a disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior; an act of deliberate betrayal of one’s own sovereign nation.

Even by Hollywood standards, Sean Penn is a complete communist. I am not sure what Penn’s motives are? At first I was ambivalent – I thought maybe Penn himself didn’t know – was it his ego, his own self importance that sought power? Could he be trying to irrevocably extricate the “Spicoli” image by trying to associate himself with something of substance? Or, does he really believe in the dictatorship model for government? Is he truly concerned for the people of a country, or just concerned how to dole out laws to the people?

I think it’s just simpler than all that now. Sean Penn is an idiot. Sean Penn is a treasonous, communist buffoon who can’t define the word dictator.

McCarthy was right all those years ago about the commies in Hollywood – even though today schools liken the McCarthy trials to the absurdity of the Salem Witch Trials of the 1600’s – he was correct. Can you imagine a modern day McCarthy trials of the Hollywood elite! *gasp*